發(fā)布時間：2018-05-13 21:07

  本文選題：行政壟斷 + 抽象行政壟斷行為　； 參考：《西南財經(jīng)大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：社會制度的建立和法治秩序的維護都離不開對權利義務規(guī)范的創(chuàng)設,離不開對權力的制約和對權利的保護。在行政權力逐步擴張的今天,遏制行政壟斷的肆意擴張,加強對抽象行政壟斷行為的監(jiān)督審查力度,維護廣大人民群眾的根本利益成為了法治建設進程中關鍵步驟之一。 我國現(xiàn)行《行政訴訟法》采用了間接審查的方式對抽象行政壟斷行為進行司法監(jiān)督,即法院在判定具體行政壟斷行為是否合法時是可以“參照”規(guī)章的,對合法的規(guī)章在裁判文書中加以引用,這里的參照即帶有間接審理的含義。由于間接審理的非直接性,法院不能直接對違法的抽象行政壟斷行為作出裁決,這就意味著法院在參照規(guī)章的過程中即使認為據(jù)以作出該具體行政壟斷行為的行政規(guī)章違法,也仍不能就此裁決其無效,該抽象行政行為仍然可以以司法審判的缺位而繼續(xù)堂而皇之的存在,繼續(xù)做出更多的具體行政壟斷行為,這樣的規(guī)定也就造成了包括“紅頭文件”在內(nèi)的行政規(guī)范性文件的持續(xù)泛濫。法彥云,一次不公的(司法)判斷比多次不平的舉動為禍尤烈。因為這些不平的舉動不過弄臟了水流,而不公的判斷則把水源敗壞了。我們可以將現(xiàn)行法律對抽象行政壟斷行為的間接審查理解為這里的“不公的判斷”,或者說比不公的判斷更為不公,因為它直接賦予了抽象行政壟斷行為的司法豁免權,它是造成這些“不公裁判”的“水源”。如此一來,變革抽象行政壟斷行為的司法審查制度勢在必行。2013年12月《行政訴訟法修正(草案)》也順應了這一態(tài)勢,按照新增第14條和第66條的規(guī)定,行政相對人在提起具體行政壟斷行為行政訴訟時可以附帶提請法院對抽象行政壟斷行為進行審查。同時依據(jù)該條文的規(guī)定,法院在審理行政案件中,發(fā)現(xiàn)行政相對人所提及的規(guī)范性文件不合法的,該規(guī)范性文件不作為認定具體行政行為合法的依據(jù),并將其轉(zhuǎn)送有管轄權的機關依法處理。這就意味著在《行政訴訟法》排除法院對抽象行政壟斷行為直接進行司法審查的23年后,受抽象行政壟斷行為損害的行政相對人終于可以通過司法途徑獲得救濟,透過這扇法門,人們對將抽象行政壟斷行為納入到司法審查的范圍不再僅僅是懷著期望,而有了更多切實的期待。但是圍繞《草案》關于受案范圍和訴訟方式的規(guī)定,學界的異議聲一直未停止過,其現(xiàn)實根源是由于實踐中越來越多的存在著抽象行政壟斷行為不經(jīng)具體行政壟斷行為而直接對行政行對人產(chǎn)生損害的現(xiàn)象,對于此種情況的司法救濟現(xiàn)行法律和《草案》都沒有規(guī)定。為什么要將純粹的抽象行政壟斷行為排除在司法審查的范圍之外,為什么不能直接提起訴訟,只能附帶提起訴訟,不被參照的規(guī)章的效力如何?等等這一系列問題這也是學界隨著《草案》的公布討論得也越加的激烈的問題。 本文也正是以此為契機,圍繞《草案》第14條的相關規(guī)定,試圖從抽象行政壟斷行為司法審查的立法和實踐現(xiàn)狀入手,歸納出我國現(xiàn)階段對抽象行政壟斷行為在司法審查過程中存在的主要問題,指出現(xiàn)有司法審查制度的不足,之后再漸進式的從技術層面上揭示對抽象行政壟斷行為有限司法審查的根源所在；接下來再分別從抽象行政壟斷行為本身和司法審查方式本身來對抽象行政壟斷行為司法審查進行界定,包括了對行政法規(guī)、行政規(guī)章性質(zhì)的探討和行政訴訟法院受案范圍、審查方式的討論；之后從法理、制度和現(xiàn)實依據(jù)三方面論述對抽象行政壟斷行為司法審查的必要性依據(jù)；之后對大陸和英美法系的司法審查制度進行對比,總結出其對抽象行政壟斷行為審查的共性以及對我國的借鑒意義,在此基礎上從憲法、行政法和反壟斷法等方面來考慮如何完善我國對抽象行政壟斷行為的司法審查制度,從宏觀和微觀層面,由立法到技術操作層面來予以規(guī)制,希望以此為完善我國抽象行政壟斷行為司法審查制度有所幫助。
[Abstract]:The establishment of the social system and the maintenance of the rule of law are inseparable from the creation of the norms of rights and obligations, the restriction of power and the protection of rights. In today's gradual expansion of the administrative power, it is necessary to contain the wanton expansion of administrative monopoly, strengthen the supervision of the supervision of the abstract administrative monopoly and safeguard the fundamental interests of the masses. Yi Cheng is one of the key steps in the process of building the rule of law.
The current law of administrative procedure in our country adopts the way of indirect examination to conduct judicial supervision on abstract administrative monopoly. That is, the court can "refer" to the rules when judging whether the specific administrative monopoly is legal or not, and the legal rules are quoted in the referee's documents. The reference here is with the meaning of indirect hearing. In the case of the non direct hearing, the court can not make a direct decision on the illegal abstract administrative monopoly, which means that the court can not adjudicate it in the process of reference to the rules, even though it considers it illegal to make the specific administrative monopoly. The abstract administrative act can still be judged by the judiciary. The absence and the continuation of the grand existence continue to make more specific administrative monopolies, which have resulted in the continuing overflow of administrative normative documents, including the "red head document". The water, and the unfairness of the judgment, corrupts the water. We can understand the indirect examination of the abstract administrative monopoly by the current law as the "unfair judgment", or more unfair than the unfair judgment, because it directly gives the judicial immunity of the abstract administrative monopoly, which is the cause of these "unjust referees." "Water source". In this way, the judicial review system for the reform of abstract administrative monopoly is imperative in December.2013, the amendment of the administrative procedure law (Draft) also conforms to this situation. According to the provisions of the new fourteenth and sixty-sixth articles, the administrative counterpart can be brought to the court when the administrative lawsuits of the specific administrative monopoly act are brought to the court. At the same time, according to the provisions of this provision, the court finds that the normative documents mentioned by the administrative relative are illegal in the trial of administrative cases. The normative documents do not act as the basis for the identification of the legal administrative actions and transfer them to the competent authorities to deal with them according to law. After 23 years of judicial review of the abstract administrative monopoly, the administrative counterpart, which is damaged by the abstract administrative monopoly, can finally get the relief through judicial channels. Through this way, people are no longer only expecting the scope of the abstract administrative monopoly into the judicial review. There are more practical expectations. But around the provisions of the draft on the scope of the case and the way of litigation, the dissenting voices of the academic circles have not ceased. The real root of this is that there are more and more abstract administrative monopolies without specific administrative monopolies. There are no provisions in the current law and the draft of the judicial relief. Why should we exclude pure abstract administrative monopoly from the scope of judicial review; why can we not bring the lawsuit directly, only incidental to the litigation, the effectiveness of the rules that are not referred to? And so on, this series of issues is also with the "draft >" The issue of the discussion is more and more intense.
This article also takes this opportunity as an opportunity to start with the relevant provisions of the fourteenth article of the draft, trying to conclude the main problems of abstract administrative monopoly in the process of judicial review from the present situation of the legislation and practice of judicial review of abstract administrative monopoly. From the technical level, it reveals the origin of the limited judicial review of the abstract administrative monopoly, and then defines the judicial review of abstract administrative monopoly from the abstract administrative monopoly and the judicial review itself, including the administrative regulations, the administrative rules and regulations and the administrative litigation court. After the discussion of the scope of the case and the way of examination, the necessity basis for the judicial review of abstract administrative monopoly is discussed from three aspects of jurisprudence, system and reality, and then the comparison of the judicial review system between the mainland and the Anglo American legal system is made, and the generality and reference significance for the review of the abstract administrative monopoly are summarized. On this basis, from the constitution, the administrative law and the antitrust law, we should consider how to improve our judicial review system of abstract administrative monopoly, from the macro and micro level, from the legislative to the technical operation level, hoping to improve the judicial review system of the abstract administrative monopoly behavior in our country.

【學位授予單位】：西南財經(jīng)大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D922.294;D925.3

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前7條

1 張守文;;論經(jīng)濟法學的特異性范疇[J];北京大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2006年03期

2 魏瓊;;反抽象行政性壟斷之探析——以《中華人民共和國反壟斷法》第37條為文本[J];法學雜志;2009年12期

3 聶孝紅;;“行政壟斷”納入我國《反壟斷法》的必要性[J];河北法學;2007年02期

4 鄧志松;黃勇;;限制價格競爭的行政壟斷與政府價格管制之間界限[J];價格理論與實踐;2010年05期

5 王曉曄;;《中華人民共和國反壟斷法》析評[J];法學研究;2008年04期

6 祁歡;從歐盟競爭法看中國的反壟斷法[J];政法論壇;2003年04期

7 胡錦光;中國憲法的司法適用性探討[J];中國人民大學學報;1997年05期

，

本文編號：1884800